Comments on: BREAKING NEWS: Massachusetts AG to Sue U.S. Over DOMA Law

By: MiniFail Blog Views: July 08, 2009 | MINIMUM FAILURE

MiniFail Blog Views: July 08, 2009 | MINIMUM FAILURE — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:56:01 +0000

[...] GayPatriot posts facts, forgoes commentary when a State sues Fed over Marriage Act. [...]

By: Brezh

Brezh — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 01:48:53 +0000

Of course, with overwhelming Dem majorities in both houses of Congress, elected on the Dem platform firmly supportive of gay rights, why, exactly, do we need to wait years for a lawsuit to work its way through the system?

By: The Livewire

The Livewire — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:02:04 +0000

I think the Supreme Court ~~will~~ should easily find that there is no guarantee of marriage in the Constitution.

Fixed it for you

By: North Dallas Thirty

North Dallas Thirty — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:58:10 +0000

Actually, what this is happens to be an attempt by a desperately-unpopular Deval Patrick to appeal to a group with money and screaming capability.

The response back is simple; so if Utah interprets its constitution to allow polygamy, that means the Federal government must recognize multiple spouses for Federal benefits.

Marriage and Federal benefits are not constitutional rights provided to all citizens; they are privileges that are provided only to those who meet the criteria established. The Federal government is well within its rights to establish those criteria and maintain them, and I think the Supreme Court will easily find that there is no guarantee of marriage in the Constitution.

By: The Livewire

The Livewire — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 10:58:04 +0000

Something hit me this morning, listening to NPR.

As much amusement as we derive from watching the current administration defend DADT and DOMA, they are doing their job.

Even if someone disagrees with an established law, it’s the job of the executive to defend the laws of the land. Just like it’s the job of the judiciary to determine if the law violates the constitution, not if it is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ or if it matches ‘international law.

So I will be curious how this plays out.

By: John

John — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 10:35:14 +0000

Actually Dave this lawsuit has strong federalist appeal by challenging only Section 3 of DOMA. Quite clever as it apparently throws some conservatives into confusion as well.

By: Classical Liberal Dave

Classical Liberal Dave — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 07:18:52 +0000

36 years after Roe v. Wade the Lefties have learned nothing.

By: Rhymes With Right

Rhymes With Right — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:36:19 +0000

I guess i fail to see where Massachusetts has standing?